NAKULA CHARAN DAS Vs. NISHAKAR BEHERA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The additional Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation in his order dated 21-11-1994 passed in Consolidation Revision Case No. 200 of 1994 (Annexure-3) remanded the case to the Consolidation Officer for trial and disposal according to law. The petitioner-Nakula Charan Das who was opposite party No. 2 in the aforesaid revision feeling aggrieved by the order of remand has filed this writ application for quashing of the same.

(2.) A few fasts may be relevant for disposal of this matter. Land measuring Ac. O. 18 under Khata No. 194 relating to L. R. Plot No. 301 of mouza Jhinkirla is the subject matter of dispute. Admittedly, it is a homestead land. During the consolidation operation, Nisakar Behera and Kanhel Behera (opposite parties 1 and 2) filed Objection Case No. 249 of 1987 for recording the disputed land in their favour. The Assistant Consolidation Officer dropped the case by order dated 27.2.1987 on the ground that a civil suit relating to the disputed land was pending adjudication. When it came to the notice that the village had come under the consolidation operation, the trial Court before whom the civil suit was pending passed orders on 5.2.1987 declaring abatement of the suit. Thereafter, opposite parties 1 and 2 again filed Objection Case No. 1030 of 1987 under Sec. 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act, 1972 (in short, 'the Act') for recording of the disputed land in their names. The Consolidation Officer by order dated 29.4.1988 (Annexure-1) dropped the case as the land being homestead was not consolidable. Against the aforesaid order dropping the objection case, the opposite parties 1 and 2 filed revision under Sec. 37 of the Act before the Additional Commissioner who by the impugned order has come to hold that since the homestead land has now been included within the purview of the consolidation operation by Orissa Act 2 of 1989, the Consolidation Officer has to decide the case according to law and accordingly remanded the case to him (Consolidation Officer) for the purpose of disposal.

(3.) Shri Baug, learned counsel for the petitioner, raised the following points :